The following article is an open letter from the Palestine Coalition to Mark Rowley, the Met Police commissioner
The Palestine Coalition has today written to the Metropolitan Police commissioner, Mark Rowley, calling on him to retract his scurrilous and defamatory claims that we “set out with an intent to march near synagogues”.
Mark Rowley: lie after lie
Our letter to the Commissioner describes these claims as “incomprehensible and defamatory” and urges a “speedy retraction of the accompanying scurrilous claim of antisemitism”.
Letter in full below:
Dear Mark Rowley
We are very concerned to see that you have publicly stated that the organisers’ initial suggestion for the Palestine marches has ‘involved walking by a synagogue’ and that this sends a message that ‘feels like antisemitism’. These claims are incomprehensible and defamatory.
Our first route suggestion for the next demonstration to commemorate the Nakba, made in writing on 18 December last year, was for a march from Embankment to Whitehall, via Westminster and Waterloo bridges, a route which we have used at least twice before and on which there are no synagogues.
After three months of silence we were finally told by your officers that this route was disallowed on the grounds that Tommy Robinson’s far right demonstration – a real hate march – was inexplicably going to be granted the whole political centre of London, and that we would have to march elsewhere.
Our second suggestion, made after much protest, was that we march from the Israeli Embassy via Knightsbridge to Trafalgar Square – again, a route that does not go past a synagogue, and one previously agreed by the police. This too has been disallowed, and a shorter route has been arbitrarily imposed.
The truth is that at no point have we ever requested to ‘walk by’ a synagogue on any of our marches. We have no interest in doing so. Police recordings of our meetings with you will confirm this.
We can and will provide the email evidence to back up these facts. It is completely unacceptable for a senior public official to make these false claims and accusations, which can only raise the level of tension in the current situation.
We urge a speedy public retraction of your statement and the accompanying scurrilous claim of antisemitism.
Featured image via the Canary













Mark Rowley is not fit to be a police officer because he is a liar and given police officers are supposed to be honest (sic) unbiased (sic) and non political (I wish) I would like to know how many times has this man lied when giving evidence in court???
He sounds like an ideal police officer, acting mendaciously for the ruling class. That’s what policing under capitalism is all about.
I have been told by sources I consider reliable that to have a cereer in the police it is necessary to become a Freemason. Is this correct?
The Freemasons are a kind of Mafia run by the British establishment, including the king. They seem to have crown immunity and do as they ate told.
This is surely why Rowley gets away with this sickening display of police brutality and the Government gets away with treating opponents of genocide as ‘terrorists’.
What Freemasons do with each other in private is their affair. But membership of the brotherhood must br publicly declared and treated as a potential conflict of interest in every appointment and legal case.
Absolutely rubbish.. get your facts right, not speculation.
No it’s not right at all. I’m friends with a copper, she’s not a free mason.
Get him sued. If you dont this, will continue.
I would suggest prosecuting the officer on the grounds they’re in breach of their oath, which states they must serve, and I quote: “without fear or favour”. Private prosecution is a thing, look it up.
A corrupt officer is a problem for the police force, and he clearly shows preferential treatment for zionists and zionism. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (not “Tommy Robinson”, a fake name) is a pro-Tel Aviv zionist shill, and the fact the officer is fabricating falsehoods about synagogues and giving preferential treatment to zionist shills shows he is acting with favour (I.E. is bias), in breach of his legally binding oath.
Independent Police Complaints process must be filed, and this specific obligation must be invoked.